Manneken Pis is one of the most unexpected studies in a series devoted to French culture. The historical trajectory of this now-Belgian statue created in 1453—or earlier—and subsequently contested by both Belgian linguistic communities, Flemish and French, justifies its inclusion in the series. Belgium, founded as an independent state only in 1830, was for most of its history a region ruled by a number of parties (the Carolingians, the Burgundians, the Dutch Republic, Spain, and France) all contesting territory, alliances, and boundaries.

The axiomatic center of this well-researched study, Manneken Pis, is alternatively associated with the working class, the bourgeois, mercantile interests, the nobility, craft guilds, and the king himself. It has been viewed as a religious artifact and as a symbol of sexuality; associated with drinking, it is worn as an emblem by Brussels’ students, and has been part of “official discourse from its earliest appearance” (5). It has been linked to baroque painters and celebrated as a symbol of resistance: “In this way Manneken Pis can be mustered in the service of a serious political or social agenda while those who do so argue that it should not be taken seriously” (88). It boasts a wardrobe of hundreds of costumes and uniforms, gifts of as many fans and even nations. According to the book’s author, Catherine Emerson, the multiplicity of interpretations found in fictional, historical, and academic writings is testimony to Manneken Pis’s enduring “folk” presence.

The author manifests a certain ambiguity about the definition of folklore paralleled only by the ambivalent feelings created by the many interpretations of Manneken Pis, none of which is given any prevalence over others, citing several etymological and linguistic sources as well as the writings of established folklorists, the author settles on cosmopolitan tourists as the most likely folk group engendered by the statue, notwithstanding the many festivals, fraternities, and associations devoted to the care and celebration of this small urinating boy that has been and remains the symbol of Brussels, and, by extension, of Belgium.

Emerson’s reluctance to consider other groups as “folk” is mostly due to their association with economic interests: “While there is an ideological element in attitudes to folklore, folklore itself presents its activities as standing aside from ideological concern just as it places itself outside commercial ones” (21). This statement could be contested by many.

Extensively researched, citing hundreds of references and documented anecdotes, this study is not only a riveting document on an enduring object of global attraction—witness its many copies worldwide—but could also be read as a synthesis of the Belgian psyche.

This study might serve as a template for the study of other iconic public monuments, such as the statue of Liberty or the Danish mermaid sitting at the end of Copenhagen’s promenade.

--------

[Review length: 458 words • Review posted on February 22, 2017]